So fight back. Spread the word about jury nullification, but don't EVER hint to a judge that you are even aware of it. I will not have any part in sending someone to prison for possession of a relatively harmless plant. That's patently absurd.

nekom:scottydoesntknow: They're fighting a losing battle, and they know it.

So fight back. Spread the word about jury nullification, but don't EVER hint to a judge that you are even aware of it. I will not have any part in sending someone to prison for possession of a relatively harmless plant. That's patently absurd.

Ohhh no sorry, I think you misread that. I meant the DEA is fighting a losing battle.

scottydoesntknow:Ohhh no sorry, I think you misread that. I meant the DEA is fighting a losing battle.

No, I knew you meant that. My point is everyone should be aware that if you're on a jury, you don't HAVE to convict even if guilt is obvious. No judge will ever tell you this, and you'll be excused if you even hint that you know it, but it's your right if you believe the law is wrong.

my Google-fu is weak today. I know that in Colorado, part of the tax money from sales went to a fund for the Attorney General to 1) sue the fed and 2) protect anyone tried by the fed. Was something similar put on the books in Washington?

Where wolf:my Google-fu is weak today. I know that in Colorado, part of the tax money from sales went to a fund for the Attorney General to 1) sue the fed and 2) protect anyone tried by the fed. Was something similar put on the books in Washington?

That's probably a good idea. They had to know the DEA would be coming in to wave its dick around after passing these laws.

Dispenseries in California have put up with this for years. I remember seeing an interview on "Marijuana Inc." where a dispensery owner says that saying how much marijuana he sells would set off a DEA raid. From what I could tell, the unofficial deal was that you in no way directly stated what you did on federal documentation and you didn't rub the fed's noses in it.

I feel like I'm hearing more statements like this these days. "It is inevitable", "Just accept it", "You can never win", "You're a [insert insult here], so why does your opinion matter?", etc. Why does it sound like people who make arguments like this sound more like super villains than anything else?

So fight back. Spread the word about jury nullification, but don't EVER hint to a judge that you are even aware of it. I will not have any part in sending someone to prison for possession of a relatively harmless plant. That's patently absurd.

06Wahoo:scottydoesntknow: They're fighting a losing battle, and they know it.

I feel like I'm hearing more statements like this these days. "It is inevitable", "Just accept it", "You can never win", "You're a [insert insult here], so why does your opinion matter?", etc. Why does it sound like people who make arguments like this sound more like super villains than anything else?

06Wahoo:scottydoesntknow: They're fighting a losing battle, and they know it.

I feel like I'm hearing more statements like this these days. "It is inevitable", "Just accept it", "You can never win", "You're a [insert insult here], so why does your opinion matter?", etc. Why does it sound like people who make arguments like this sound more like super villains than anything else?

It all comes down to federal jobs. As long as there are federal law enforcers and for-profit federal prisons, there will be a war on "drugs".

These agencies rely on a federal budget and if suddenly there isn't a need to have officers chasing after the pot smokers, then they lose their budgets and their fat pay cheques. Also, the corporations that sell weapons to these agencies, the corporations who supply the for-profit prisons, etc. lobby to keep the war on drugs going. They don't want to lose their government contracts.

It is all about big business and federal budgets and they don't give a damn about what "we the people" actually want.

That's right. He personally led the raid, then went back in time to the 1930s and lobbied Congress to make marijuana illegal.

He didn't lead the raid, and no one's saying that. He did say there was no reason to focus on states that have it legalized, yet the DEA is knocking breaking down people's doors in states where it's legalized.

Obama says - quote - "It does not make sense from a prioritization point of view" to focus on drug use in states where it is now legal.

They need to get their dogs back on a leash, otherwise it does look hypocritical.

Because when I think of pro-marijuana, I think of Republicans. Some Libertarians are pro-marijuana. Most Libertarians are Republicans, however.So the answer is to keep voting in democrats that increase penalties for idiotic drug laws.

nekom:scottydoesntknow:Ohhh no sorry, I think you misread that. I meant the DEA is fighting a losing battle.

No, I knew you meant that. My point is everyone should be aware that if you're on a jury, you don't HAVE to convict even if guilt is obvious. No judge will ever tell you this, and you'll be excused if you even hint that you know it, but it's your right if you believe the law is wrong.

How often do drug crimes go before a jury? How often do dispensary raids end up before a jury?

06Wahoo:scottydoesntknow: They're fighting a losing battle, and they know it.

I feel like I'm hearing more statements like this these days. "It is inevitable", "Just accept it", "You can never win", "You're a [insert insult here], so why does your opinion matter?", etc. Why does it sound like people who make arguments like this sound more like super villains than anything else?

I'm not in favor of legalizing marijuana, but unless these dealers were involved in transporting this stuff directly to another state (interstate commerce) than this is WAY out of line for the Feds, Constitutionally.

But, then again, when was the last time the Constitution really mattered in our society?